ay it. I understand if you think it but how in the world could this be politically smart to be the one who gets singled out for being against it? It's such an obvious trap.

And here's how I would have played it if I were in Congress. So that just so I don't get caught in this you're against the anti-lynching bill. I would have been more forth than anybody. I would have been for digging up people who had been lynched just to kill them again. I mean I would have been so for it that if they ever talked to me I'd say are you kidding? I'm the number one person in favor of this. Which would make sense because I have identified as Black for a while.

But I noticed a trend and can you tell me if this is bias or is this real? Okay this is just something I observe so there's no science to it. There's no data to it. Just sort of my observation. Does it seem to you that Democrats are tough on crime when the crime isn't one that's actually happening? Am I wrong about that? I mean we've got the lynching. They're tough on lynching which thankfully is basically not happening. If it ever does happen, yeah I mean we should go as hard on whoever does such a horrible thing as we can. But it's interesting that they would pick that as where they'd be tough on crime.

Do you remember when the Democrats thought Russia collusion was real? Well they were pretty tough on that, weren't they? They were tough on that crime that, oh wait a minute, that didn't exist. Yeah so they're tough on that crime that doesn't exist. They're also tough on a lot of crimes of people thinking things wrong. So if you're thinking things wrong they're really tough on that. I feel as if Democrats are not really understanding the whole tough on crime concept and where to apply it and when not to apply it. Is it just me? I don't know. It feels like a trend or a pattern. Maybe just my imagination.

Apparently the number of workers in the workplace, which is exactly where the workers should be, if you see a worker not in the workplace send them back, they belong in the workplace even at lunch. We'll have no goofing off. All right. Apparently there are more people using drugs in the workplace but I was surprised that they say it's risen to 4.6%. A bunch of people were randomly tested and I thought to myself only 4.6%? What workplace could you go into and find only 4.6% on drugs? And I thought oh, just certain drugs. Just certain drugs. If you tested all the people who were on a drug that would affect their performance how many would that be? Well that would be all of them. It's just some of them are legal, some of them are prescribed. Some is coffee, it's booze. But I would guess that 75% of the workforce is consciously changing their brain chemistry through drugs one way or the other. I mean maybe it's only on the weekend. Yeah maybe it's sugar anyway.

Joel Pollak has an article in Breitbart in which he's talking about the reparations efforts in California. And he points out, and I never thought of this before, that California had never been a slave state. So I live in the state. California, they've never been slaves here. It's always been a free state. But we're talking about, and there's some kind of commit